December 30, 2010

Aw, come on! Did they examine his penis and compare it to the picture? Yes, the picture may have been fuzzy... but maybe his penis is fuzzy.

Favre has to pay $50,000 anyway, because he "was not candid in several respects during the investigation." Either he failed to cover up in the first instance or he inappropriately covered up in the second.

40 comments:

My thought on "Forensic Analysis" was on their ability to track the cell phone records from his phone to her phone. That, given all the freaking out going on by the "Black Helicopter Crowd" and soon-to-be ex-Senator Russ Feingold about FISA is mind-blowing to me.

Someone's full of it on the issue of cell phone tracking and I'm really leaning towards the NFL.

Jenn Sterger (the woman) was hired because of some sexy pictures of her in Sports Illustrated mag, that Brent Musberger thought would be a good matchup for the male dominated football sports sceen. Jenn and Brent are just as much at fault here. I'm thinking of sending the woman a picture of my penis also. Could I borrow the fish bowl lens?

USA Today asks if Favre got off too lightly. But perhaps the pic of Jenn Sterger they use to accompany the article somehow works against their thesis?

A $50,000 fine for a pic that Brett may or may not have sent of what may or may not be his junk to a woman who may or may not have been flirting with him (but was definitely using her sexuality to [successfully!] advance her career) seems sufficient, no?

Brett ought to sue the NFL for $50,000,00.Whether he did or did not send the skank the photos is not their business. Honestly the league needs to get it's ass kicked. Enough of the freeloading off the taxpayers with their subsidized stadiums and other breaks.

Ham is right, 50K isn't even pocket change to these guys, it's like pennies on the sidewalk that aren't worth stooping for. And thanks to all those stadium subsidies, it's Taxpayer Pennies! Yes, suckers, this is what your tax dollars are used for...

Is there anyone more full of shit than Roger Goodell? A "forensic analysis" of this case should take about 20 minutes - Look at Sterger's phone, see the number that the cock pictures came from, then find out if it was Favre's phone number. Not that the league should really care about it anyway, but still.

The idea that a 41 year old man would think that a 25 year old woman would want to see a picture of his junk disturbs me. Even There's Something About Mary did not stretch the limits of age-appropriateness, much less good taste -- Cameron Diaz would have been a more realistic 36 in 2008.

Applying the same age ratio to Favre, I doubt he would want a 67 year old woman to send him a picture of her naked hoo-ha.

"Look at Sterger's phone, see the number that the cock pictures came from, then find out if it was Favre's phone number."

I'm guessing they did that, but Favre denied that it was him. Someone else could have swiped his phone and taken a picture of someone else's body. Therefore the evidence was inconclusive. Just guessing.

It's more than likely the "forensic analysis" referred to is digital, not phalic (as Kevin suggests in post 1). I deal with computer/cellular forensics on a daily basis. The retention period or format for text/picture messages is not standardized across the industry, and is usually very brief (days or weeks). The service providers would have been a dead end in this case. If the sending & receiving phones didn't still have the photos on them, there's no likelihood of any decent evidence being recovered. Even if the phones retained the photos, cell phone data is extremely sensitive to spoliation and relatively easy to manipulate. So, it's a convenient position for the NFL to take, as it's entirely defensible.